Tom Thies San Marcos wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:33 AM:Mr. Crews' comment confuses the issue and he would like us to believe that Christians are proponents of prejudice. History clearly reveals that Christians have stood against injustice, prejudice and oppression. Prop. 8 is standing on Biblical truth, that God established from the beginning that marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is not a human convention but a covenant between a man and a woman for all time!

Idea Guy wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:51 AM:If you oppose gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender. But what business does the state of California have in telling us who we can marry?

Straight guy wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:53 AM:Look, if we have to get married and wake up next to same person day after day, so do they.

Dave - Oceanside wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:02 AM: History clearly reveals that Christians have stood against injustice, prejudice and oppression.

What history are you reading?

If you have something that you aren't allowing others to have.. it's descrimination..

Christian.. try this.. Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 14:10-12

Don't pretend to know God's plan.. stop judging.. VOTE NO on 8

Fallbrook_mom wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:21 AM:There seems to be a problem here of calling wrong right and right wrong. Try telling a five year old two mommies are married. This type of confusion was how Babylon was destroyed - there's an agenda to take out the moral fiber of what's left to our One Nation under God. If you believe the bible, stay tuned there's much more on it's way.

Well said wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:34 AM:Mr. Crews states the case against Proposition 8 clearly and concisely. Gay people have had the right to marry since last May and more than 11,000 couples have done just that in the last few months. California has not fallen into the sea yet and God has not launched any lightning bolts at San Francisco yet either. The divorce rate has remained steady - straight marriages are not being destroyed any faster than usual. Well written, Mr. Crewa.

The History of Marriage LICENSES wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:53 AM:The article is not a history. It is propaganda. There is no basis for the Judeo-Christian and Biblical statements whatsoever.

For most of history, marriage was a private agreement between two families. Until the seventeenth century, the validity of a marriage was accepted by Christian churches on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows (even without witnesses) the churches accepted the marriage as valid. The state was never involved in forming marriages, and NO LICENSE was required.

In the early days of the United States, state courts routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Until the mid-nineteenth century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid in the United States, but thereafter the states began to invalidate common-law marriages.

The growing requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. was justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect all citizens from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.

In the early part of this century, the marriage license became a requirement in all states. Some states, but not all, then used a marriage license as a way to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. At one time, 38 states prohibited such marriages. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

Nothing in the long history of marriage among humans justifies changing the centuries old and liguistically long established meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Further, if issuing marriage licenses only to a man and a woman violates constitutional equal protections, then the better remedy is to invalidate the state's licensing system, which would result in less government in the personal lives of the state's citizens. Instead, an oligarchy of judges decided to expand its political oversight, further inserting the state into the private affairs of the people.

It is exremely ironic for the courts to declare that requiring couple to obtain a state issued license, which license becomes a public document, protects the PRIVACY rights of the people. What a bunch of political hogwash!

Vote for less government. Vote for privacy. Vote for parental rights. Vote YES on Prop 8!

AW wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:49 PM:Anyone who has taken a ancient/Roman history class knows that the institution of marriage is "man made" for political reasons. Anyone who has taken a history class on the "history of marriage" would also see that the "institution" has gone through MANY changes that served whatever agenda the government needed at that particular time.

Asteroid wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:14 PM:I confess, I didn’t read the piece, I had only to read the authors name to discern its tenor and message; I really expected it would be Dick Eiden’s name there. However I am pleased that the members of the virulently anti-American group, the North County Forum has decide to dedicate so much of it’s time to the advancement of the homosexual agenda as opposed to spreading lies, mis-information, and propaganda about illegal immigration.

Peter wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:41 PM:Question:

If same-sex marriage claims it ensures civil right of for a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman.
Are you going to ensure "civil right" of a bisexual man by allow him to marry another man and another woman at the same time.
Oh, the answer may be is:
today we allow him to marry a man, and tomorrow we allow him to divorce to that man and marry to the woman, and the day after that allow him to do it again in cycle.

What a great idea! What a wonderful world!

Frank wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:47 PM:It's pity. Vote anything is "Judging". Well, I will Vote Yes.

No on 8 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:58 PM:Well said Dave from Oceanside. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

No to hate. No on 8.

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:36 PM:Haters of gays thrive in America

As flawed as his spelling, grammar and syntax, Nate’s knowledge is far more atrocious (2:13 PM). For example, what is a “genereation”? And does he really say things like “I never seen”?

Nate’s worst: He stated he has never seen violence inflicted on gays, nor prejudice directed at them. Nate must live on another planet.

Obviously he never heard of the brutal murder of little Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming, or the 15 year old gay student, Lawrence King, in Oxnard who was shot and killed this year in a terrible hate crime by a homophobic classmate. Has Nate not heard of David Ritcheson of Houston who was brutally sodomized with a plastic umbrella pole and beaten unconscious by homophobic mob, which left him unconscious. His attackers also stomped on him, burned him with cigarettes and poured bleach on him before leaving him for dead. He survived after being hospitalized for three months and 30 surgeries.

And of course Nate knows nothing of Jim D. Adkisson of Tennessee, whose hatred of gays drove him to enter the Unitarian-Universalist Church in Tennessee with 76 rounds of ammunition where he pulled a shotgun from a guitar case and went on a shooting rampage to kill homosexuals.

There are thousands of horrors like this, yet people like Nate claim ignorance, many of them right here in San Diego County Well, they are ignorant. Very ignorant.

Peters Problem wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:44 PM:Peter’s problem is that he is not aware that polygamy is illegal under current law in this country. (2:41 PM)

A bi-sexual is free, under the CA Constitution, to marry the one person of his choice, whether male or female. He is not permitted two at a time. Only bizarre sects in Utah still practice polygamy in the U.S.

Did you really not know this, Peter?

to Asteroid from the NCF wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:54 PM:We here at the North County Forum appreciate your over-estimation of our importance here in North County. We have not given up on the "virulent anti-Americanism" of people like the Minutemen who seem to just have some kind of racial bias against Mexico. Especially now that the Oceanside police think that they can start setting up checkpoints into Hispanic (American) neighborhoods to confiscate cars and make big bucks. Lawsuits will be on the way. By the way, being able to marry your partner is now part of the "homosexual agenda"? What next? Being able to go to heaven?

Chris wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:08 PM:Mr Crews has some valid points. There were some things that he stated that clearly needed to evolve and be corrected. Ive heard over and over how marriage needs to evolve. I think it has evolved enough. Inter-racial marriages; yea I understand that and I think everyone else does as well. At least they were talking about inter-racial marriages of different gender. When you talk about same gender marriages, thats a different story. I mean, where do you draw the line on this? Some things must remain traditional. Man and woman. Thats as traditional as it gets. To me it would be like combining Christmas and Easter into one holiday. Wouldnt work would it. Why not draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa and destroy a work of art. Getting the picture? Vote Yes on 8

Another Fallbrook mom wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:09 PM:I grew up in Alabama in the 1950’s 1970’s. Long ago. I remember well the hatred and prejudice against racially mixed couples, and I remember the arguments of Southern Christians who argued that “mixing the races” was contrary to the natural laws of God and the teachings of the Bible. And when public schools were integrated, bigoted Southerners (we have them in San Diego, too) I heard many say this was going to bring illicit sexual contacts between black and white students. This was absolutely anathema to many devout fundamentalist Southern Christians. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against segregation, white Southerners took their kids out of the public schools, and overnight opened their own white Christian schools to prevent their children from being exposed to racial diversity and mixed race dating and marriage.

I submit that most fundamentalists who call themselves Christians still do not accept the right of a mixed race couple. How many mixed wedding ceremonies have you personally attended in a Christian church?

The comment of Fallbrook_mom (9:21 AM) revived all these ugly memories. Kids reared by two mothers have little problem growing up in a supporting and loving family.

Expect the same ignorant reaction and lies once again from narrow-minded fundamentalist who cannot adjust to the rights of same-gender couples. What troubles them most is that two gay men (or two lesbians) can be deeply and spiritually devoted to each other and be normal, productive members of society.

Voter wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:15 PM:The reason for "separation of state and church".

RE Marrige Licenses wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:32 PM:The blogger of 11:53 AM dealt with the very narrow subject of marriage Licenses, concluding that all marriages consumated before the age of such legal government documents did not involve contracts, whether verbal or social.

The verbal agreements between wealthy families in ancient times did not require a LICENSE from the State -- nor from a Church, whether it be from an ancient Jewish synagogue or a Temple of Apollo in Athens. Certainly many indigenous societies around the world still do not issue written licenses, yet their cultures recognize their marriages as sacred or solemn.

The blogger seems to be saying that gays do not need a secular marriage license to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Bizarre reasoning. So why, then, do heterosexuals obtain licenses? Perhaps to obtain the hundreds of legal benefits and special privileges afforded by such a legal document.

Evolution of marriage wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:50 PM:To Chris (5:08 PM):

You speak of the necessity for marriage to be traditional, and that is the overriding governing principle; and so it is until there is a new awakening in social conscience. Where I grew down in Louisiana decades ago nothing was more traditional in marriage than separation of the races, for, as Mr. Crews wrote, that was a tradition over 300 years old in America.

Then there was an awakening of social conscience after the 1950’s that interracial marriage should not be criminalized, and that two people who loved each other, no matter their race or social status, have the inalienable right to take marriage vows and live together. That was a really tough nut to crack for America.

Now comes same-gender marriage, which has been practiced periodically to a limited extent throughout history, but because homosexuals are such a small minority of the general population, their rights are just now becoming recognized. It is the slow, stead ascendence of civil rights that is the silver thread that weaves upward in the history of rising civilization.

Chris, if you had a committed gay couple in your own family, it would be easier to accept. Even Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter and her partner. I know a bit of your history, and know that your open mind has evolved your own thinking over the years.

Kenny wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:22 PM:How come there cant be a compromise on this issue.? I mean come on folks. Give the gay and lesbian population their right for cival union with every right that hetero couples have for traditional marriage. I think the gay population needs to lighten up a bit, call it a civil union and be done with it. What difference does it make as long as you get what you want; insurance benefits and equality on tax returns. Straight couples, the majority of them want their marriages kept in a pure traditional sense. And this has nothing to do with hatred or bigotry. I like what Chris said about combining Christmas and Easter into one holiday. Just dosent work. Im voting YES on 8 and so should you.

Chris wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:33 PM:To Evolution of Marriage

I want you to answer this question truthfully. Where are we to draw the line on this? Are we going to push the envelope further to include polygamists next? See what I mean. There are some things that need to remain traditional. And by the way, this important issue should not be wasted at the state level. This should be voted at the federal level. But I think everyone knows how this would go. Marriage in the traditional sense between a man and women would be overwhelmingly supported. So I think at the state level is a waste of time

To Fallbrook_mom wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:49 PM:One Nation Under God was never part of the original text of the pledge. It was added in the mid 1950's as a way to create a defining separation between us and other nations.

If you can't figure out how to explain 'two mommies' to a 5 year old then you really have no place having children. It's just not that complicated and is certainly not the most complicated challenge you'll face in rearing a child.

America is a melting pot compiled of an almost limitless count of differences. To allow one group to dictate the rights of another group is discrimination, it is wrong, it's immoral, it's unAmerican and, to be honest, it's incredibly un-Godlike.

NO ON 8!!!

Robert wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:12 PM:Mr Crews

Thank you for the history lessen. Not really sure what the relevance is. Yea we know bad things happened 40-50 years ago regarding marriage. That was rectified and made better. The line should be drawn now with traditionl marriage ceremonies, interracial couples of all ethniticities joining together. Same gender? Thats stretching it a bit. Im going to have to vote yes on 8.

Native wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:28 PM:The religious right scares me almost as much as left-wing liberals.

Evolution of marriage wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:31 PM:Reply to Chris about polygamy 6:33 PM

What about Polygamy, you ask. Actually, we have been there already. Many ancient, and still some modern cultures permit polygyny (This is the correct term). Ancient Judaism permitted it, with many accounts recorded in the Bible. Until relatively recently the Mormon Church of America sanctioned polygamy, and today some Islamic culture still sanction, even promote polygyny.

I'm not one of those who sees gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to, or assault on, traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long, slow suicide, thank you. Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and is not its cause.

Polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy, on the other hand, destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it, i.e., the rich and powerful have all the women. Furthermore, polygyny treats women as trophies and property under such a system.

Just one more reason to support gay marriage.

Asteroid to the NCF wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:40 PM:to Asteroid from the NCF
[-] wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:54 PM:

Thanks Dick for responding, however I don’t over-estimate your importance here in North County. You’re a rogue, fringe element without the intestinal fortitude to acknowledge publicly your hatred of my country. Until recently I’ve only donated to the Minutemen Project, but after hearing your intentions I plan to take a more personal involvement. I invite the rest of the patriots here to do the same. This is the United States of America; don’t let a group of cowards give it away. I’m sure you’ll have no problem getting the Criminal Liberties Union to assist you with your suites.

Chris wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:12 PM:To evolution of marriage

I will ask you again because you sound like a politician evading a very simple question. Where do you draw the line? I didnt need a history lesson on polygamy. And as far as I know polygamy is not recognized in Calif..

Church undermines liberty wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:35 PM:One of the most cherished freedoms granted to Americans in our Constitution is the freedom to choose our own religious beliefs. It is a freedom we firmly support. But that freedom also brings an obligation on the part of churches to not impose their religious beliefs on other churches, on the rest of society, or to dictate public policy. The Mormon church is now actively doing all of the above by supporting the campaign to pass Proposition 8 here in California. It has provided over 40% of all the financial support to undermine marriage rights for all.

Evolution of marriage wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:57 PM:Final reply to Chris, RE: 9:12 PM
Who am I to draw such a line? Do you really want me to draw such a line for you? I do not believe it is my right to tell you whom you cannot marry. Follow your own heart and rational judgment. And do not impose your own morality on others. And do not deprive other citizens of the joy and protections of marriage. My general guideline is the old Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And conversely, do not deprive others of the rights and protections which you yourself enjoy under the Constitution.

We do have constitutions and laws, and the California law and Constitution make same-gender marriage legal, and it has brought much happiness and protection to thousands of gay citizens. I am glad for that. I do not want to take that away from them.

A question for you:
Now I ask you a question: What limits do you want to impose upon me? And why? And what is your moral authority?

I find it mean spirited to deprive any person the right to marry the person they love and to whom they pledge their fidelity and support. Further, I find this beneficial and stabilizing for society as a whole. Have you ever wondered how you life would be affected if you were denied the right to marry the person of your choice? Think about it, Chris.

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:13 PM:I think I understand your inability to comprehend gay marriage -- you are a heterosexual. You CANNOT understand how a man can love and honor another man, be faithful and devoted to him and be sexually attracted to him.

This is not to say heterosexuals CANNOT possibly be understanding of things outside their personal experience and nature. Many are able to transcend. This transcendent ability to be tolerant and compassionate towards others is the glue that builds a greater society. It is not required that you try to imagine yourself as a homosexual in order to understand. If you are not gay, then you are not. But if you are gay, then you are gay, and no less a citizen of this country, and of this Universe. We are all of equal worth.

Peg wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:22 PM:Dear churchgoers and followers of Jesus:
Regarding Gay Marriage legalization, the reason why gay couples get married are the same as straight couples: to declare their love for each other, the desire to spend their life together, perhaps have children, and to protect their legal rights. The Bible version of marriage was a property exchange: meaning, women, were not considered a full human being. Our ideas have changed and improved, and the Catholic Church also has decided not to support slavery, and to support interracial marriages, and the right to vote for all adults in this country.
Jesus practiced radical hospitality with sinners, tax collectors, and women, breaking the taboos of the time. He preached a great commandment: to love God, your neighbor, and judge not. Many gay people who seek legal marriage have been models of faithfulness in an unwelcome, hostile time of discrimination and prejudice, such as Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who after 40 years of togetherness, where finally able to get legally married. Always supporting the marginalized, Jesus would never have practiced this hate crime of denying legal marriage to LGBT persons, which is also in this country, denying a civil right.

Peg

Polo wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:21 AM:As i see it, all you against gay marriage have one of two problems. Either you believe that people "chose" to be gay and you are completely ignorant. Or you believe that people are born gay, and yet you still fight their right to get married and declare their love for another. This makes you a wicked, evil soul.

To be against this, you guys are either ignorant or evil. sad, how many of you there are. Just think, if you spent as much time working on your own marriages, as you do fighting this issue, maybe the divorce rate wouldnt be over 50%.

JSten wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:42 AM:One reason to oppose Gay marrriage is that under this approach, it will be unclear who is allowed to beat who as prescribed by scripture.

To Dave wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:29 AM:History is a funny thing. Do you think you might read a different account of history if you read about WWII in Japan?

To Fallbrook mom wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:31 AM:One nation? Look around, this hasn't been one nation for years now! Comprende?

To Peg wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:33 AM:What Jesus would do though and I've asked him, while he was cooking my carne asada burrito, is allow the illegals in this country to do whatever they wanted and not have to worry about ANY of the laws...not just the one about not being here illegally! He mentioned putting a stop to the checkpoints too.

The CALFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:08 AM:The CTA made me change my vote to YES.

When I found out that the CTA donated over a Million and a Quarter Dollars on No, I was shocked.

What about the students, the state of the schools and the state of education in California.

And then they (CTA) waste all of this money on some silly Prop.

R/ Skip

Teachers Pay Cut wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:48 AM:As long as teachers have all this excess salary to spend on union dues which primarily go to support school board candidates and defeat propositions, lets save some tax dollars.

To CTA and Teachers Pay Posters... wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:12 AM:Come on! I think you two are just mad that they don't agree with your position.

Teachers who are members of CTA are paying dues to a non-government institution from their salary. It is their money that they earned. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. No one tells you how to spend your salary, why should you tell them how to spend theirs? Just because someone works for the government does not mean that you get to tell them how to spend their paychecks.

The reverse arguement - why don't all of the people who are supporting prop 8 use the money for schools? How come they get to spend money on signs and commercials instead of schools?

to To Fallbrook_mom wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:20 AM:"If you can't figure out how to explain 'two mommies' to a 5 year old then you really have no place having children. It's just not that complicated and is certainly not the most complicated challenge you'll face in rearing a child."

Your above comment is laughable. I suppose that we should all be able to teach or children to steal and lie since those concepts are so easy as well.

The simple fact is that children have the innate knowledge that this is not normal. The only reason they change that view is that we teach them that it is.

Straight guy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:22 AM:Most of the arguments against gay marriages are so ignorant that they probably end up helping the case for gay marriage. They either a) compare gay people to animals or b) cite passages from a Judeo-Christian religious text that isn't constitutionally recognized. Then there are the useless questions such as "where do you draw the line?" To see the idiocy of that question, try using it against the same Christianists who are hooting and hollering about gay marriage: America shouldn't allow churches to perform marriages, because it will lead marriages to be performed in skyscrapers, and then airplanes, and then rocket ships, and then on the moon, and then on Jupiter, and finally in other solar systems. Where do you draw the line?

So called- Christians wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:26 AM:"I am bothered by the fear-inducing tactics used by supporters of Proposition 8. The Gospel of Jesus Christ demands that we move past our fears to dare to include more of the world in God's love. I refuse to be convinced to restrict legal rights to members of our community because I am afraid. I do believe that there is real evil in the world, and that this campaign is distracting us from work is necessary for God's kingdom. Over and over, Jesus commanded us to care for the poor. Never once did Jesus speak about same-sex marriage. Proponents of this initiative are asking us to be afraid of the wrong thing. We have a lot of work to do if we want to follow Christ's example of love for our neighbors. This Proposition will NOT help us in that work."

STOP wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:31 AM:This article makes too much sense and doesn't leave room for close mindedness...please stop using logic!!!! I know, I'll ignore the sense you are making and say we need to say yes for the children who are being demonized by those liberal teachers in the public schools I gladly reap the benefits of!

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:35 AM:California School Holds 'Gay Day' for Kindergartners

Parents in Hayward, Calif., were shocked to learn their children were being taught to be "allies" of homosexuals, WorldNetDaily reported.

Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science reportedly did not inform parents of its pro-homosexual activities, which included "Coming Out Day," "Ally Week" and Gay and Lesbian History Month.

Pacific Justice Institute attorneys, who are advising the parents, said the school also is planning to host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, an event where students will hear adapted tales such as Jane and the Beanstalk.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said this demonstrates why Californians need to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"Do we need further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8. has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergarteners.

"This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."

Read the entire article from WorldNetDaily.


This is why YES ON 8!!!

To NCF wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:51 AM:Maybe you guys should stop being part of the problem and become part of the solutions. I do NOT HATE gays, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. PERIOD. I also believe that anyone who enters into a "civil union" should be entitled to EVERY benifit that "married" couples get. PERIOD. We have got to save the concept of marriage.

As for you statement in Law Enforcement? You are so far off track that I would be embarrassed to say I was a sad member of your group.

YES ON 8

to dave -oside wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:10 AM:yeah dave scroll back alittle bit to Romans 1; 24-27 but you knew somebody was going to bring that up. hey it's not about judging someone. its the liberal gay agenda thats being pushed on us.I will let the Lord Jesus Christ do all the judging

UMMMMM wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:31 AM:The dues come out of our salary and you MAY opt out for political reasons. It is not extra money. However, we do have an obligation as a PUBLIC institution to stand up against discrimination. If YOU don't like it homeschool or privatize!

Doug wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:35 AM:In 1920, we did the right thing when we extended the right to vote to women. Even though it was believed that social peace and the welfare of the human race depended upon woman’s staying home, having children, and keeping out of politics.1

In 1964, we did the right thing when we outlawed racial segregation and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even though President Johnson put country first when he said, “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” 2

In 1965, we did the right thing when we enfranchised close to two million African Americans with the right to vote with the National Voting Rights Act of 1965. Even though many Southern states and counties considered compliance to be costly and unfair.

In 1967, we did the right thing when we declared mescegenation laws unconstitutional, thereby freeing people of different races to marry. Even though the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell said in 1958 that racial integration would “destroy our [white] race eventually.” 3

And in 2008, we will do the right thing again when we refuse to take away the right for same-sex couples to marry. Even though some Americans think it will destroy marriage as we know it.

1. Kraditor, Aileen S. The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1890-1920 . New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1965. ISBN: 0393014495.
2. Nick Kotz, Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 61.
3. Blumenthal, Max (2007-05-16). “Agent of Intolerance”, Religion, The Nation. Retrieved on 2008-07-13.

Difference wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:37 AM:Religion...choice
Sexuality...NOT a choice
How can you discriminate against something that a person had no choice in? What many "religious" deem as "persecution"against them is merely defense FROM those who use religion TO persecute. Solution? If you don't like feeling discriminated upon, stop pushing YOUR CHOICES down others throats as you all like to say.

got Bible wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:52 PM:It's amazing that all of those Bible quoters find it convenient to leave out scripture about not judging others. In 20 years the next generation will not care about marriage between consenting adults of any type and this issue won't even be a blip on the radar.

Have any of you ever actually worked with same sex parents and children? They sure do a better job than the hetero group as a whole.

You people are funny wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:12 PM:Has anyone here actually read the text of Prop 8? Other than the title, it is exactly one sentence long. Here it is, in fact:

Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

Where in there, dear Pro-8 propagandizers, does it state that gay marriage (or indeed *any* marriage) is to be taught in schools? Nowhere. Your disgusting fear-mongering tactics are totally transparent and will be seen for what they are on election day: a desperate attempt to make a simple civil rights issue into a sham "parental rights" issue. Maybe this will turn out a few backward sheeple to the polls, but anyone with any sense of decency and fairness will be voting no. Thanks for playing, and please don't try this stunt again.

Real Difference wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:37 PM:Skin color: not a choice
Sexual behavior: a choice

This simple distinction lays the entire argument above logically irrelevant, yet it will still appeal to those who prefer to think with their feelings.

MARSELLA IN OSIDE wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:30 PM:I JUST READ IN THE SD UNION TRIBUNE, THAT IF THIS LAW IS PAST THAT SCHOOLS WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO TEACH ON THE ISSUE THAT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS OK..EXCUSE ME, BUT MY SON ISN'T GONNA BE LEARNING THAT ITS OK FOR GAYS TO MARRY, BECAUSE ITS NOT, ITS NASTY, AND THEY SHOULD KEEP THAT TO THEMSELVES. IF 2 GAYS WANNA BE IN LOVE THATS FINE, BUT DON'T FORCE IT ON SCHOOLS, AND CORRUPT INNOCENT MINDS THAT ITS RIGHT...
PLEASE VOTE YES ON 8!!!

Real Difference has a point wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:41 PM:If sexual behavior is not the same type of thing as skin color, Crew's analogy doesn't hold.

And that does seem to be the case. It has been proven through identical twin studies that homosexuality is not (entirely) genetic- there is most certainly an environmental component to one developing homosexual attractions/tendencies.

And because race is 100% genetic, we are talking about two different types of things and Crew's argument fails.

Whew, it is nice to have some good clear thinking once in a while.

Why the comparison is false wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:48 PM:Here is an enlightening quote from philosopher/theologian Greg Koukl on the issue:
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.

Bad Habit wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:06 PM:To Difference be careful with this statement because sex offenders, wife beaters, beastiality, etc can use this as their platform to change laws once thought traditional.

To NCF - Can you answer the question as to why you feel so strongly that illegal aliens should not be punished under the laws of the United States? and why you call anyone who does honor the laws of the United States a racist? Do you feel it is a human rights issue? are you of hispanic heritage? I am really trying to understand.

Lynn wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:22 PM:Anyone who believes that the homosexual agenda does not target children, even as young as kindergarten, have their head in the sand. They have an agenda to re-educate and recruit children. Just take a look at Massachusetts & the "Gay Day" in Hayward (which is near San Francisco). Gays already have the right for civil unions and can legally have all the rights of married couples. Did you know that during the Clinton administration congress passed & he signed a bill to acknowledge marriage is only between a man and a woman. Even if gays "marry" they can't file with the IRS as a couple? The IRS does not recognize same-sex couples. So far we have twice had our Yes on 8 signs stolen from our yard & friends have had a total of 14 signs stolen from their private property as well - which means the opponents not only trespass but are a bunch of thieves. Oh, I forgot I'm supposed to be "tolerant" of others opinions and not say anything bad about thieves!

Re to To Fallbrook_mom wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:23 PM:"If you can't figure out how to explain 'two mommies' to a 5 year old then you really have no place having children. It's just not that complicated and is certainly not the most complicated challenge you'll face in rearing a child."

Your above comment is laughable. I suppose that we should all be able to teach or children to steal and lie since those concepts are so easy as well.
-----
How do you equate lying and stealing with two mommies? First, be aware that I'm sure there are plenty of bad parents that do teach lying & stealing to their kids. It's naive to think there aren't.

My point is only that, if you think explaining two mommies is such a daunting task, what are you going to do when something truly important comes up?

To MARSELLA wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:03 PM:Step 1 ... Stop yelling and more people will listen.

Step 2 ... Read beyond the headlines and blogs.

There is nothing in this prop that dictates educational curriculum. Everything being cited about school lessons are presented under at least the pretense of diversity training and would have likely been covered at some point anyway. It's completely unrelated to this prop ... although it does apparently create some good propaganda.

EDUCATE YOURSELF
NO ON 8

Mario wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:24 PM:Quick question for the Yes voters, If Prop 8 passes then you think that Gays will go away or better yet that if it passes then children will not know what Gay is? Does not matter if Prop 8 passes or not, the Gay population will grow in the next few years younger and younger children will know what a gay person is and be more tolerant than today or yesterday. Do you think that passing prop 8 is going to put a "holy" shield around them? No, as the years go on, the gay population will be more known than anything, soon young adolescence will start coming out sooner and at a younger age. As soon as today's generation gets older and fewer, then tomorrow's generation will be more tolerant. I really do not think Prop 8 will pass, because I refuse that the majority of voters will find it ill to take someone's right to marry. If it does pass, then it will be only temporary, the next generation will find a way to overthrow it and deem it unconstitutional at the federal level. I am actually disgusted by the churches right now, why is this Millions of Dollars not being spent for new books for my children and their schools? WHY? Also why do I see fear in the eyes in some gay people when someone says that they are going to vote on revoking a fundamental right. This is not the United States of the Church. It is AMERICA, All men are created equal with unalienable rights. Support why this country was founded in the first place, escape from persecution from the churches. Support equality, Vote No on this Sick and Disgusting Proposition. For you yes voters and your arguements...wow, I would want my children to learn about gay people, they will learn it sooner or later. Cannot shield them from the real world they will have to learn sometime "Whether you like it or not!" Ignorance is not bliss and I teach my children to accept everyone for who and what they are. They do not blame Muslims for 9/11, nor they never will they blame the Taliban and Bin Laden. They will learn that we are all the same color beneath the skin. They will never judge a gay man or woman, because some say it is a choice if it is then it is subconscious or genetic. I hear some say they wish they were never gay, and I hear most say that they are proud. God created free will, and that is God's will, not persecuting gays.

A No Voter,
Proud straight father and husband, I pray to Jesus and accept him in my heart, and believes that the American flag is the most beautiful thing in the world...next to my 3 kids and my wife.

To RE Marrige Licenses wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:24 PM:You are right that the marriage license does afford certain rights and privileges. But, in California, ALL THOSE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE ALREADY ACCORDED TO CIVIL UNIONS, although you wouldn't know it by the propaganda being spread by those opponents of Prop 8.

No matter whether it was licensed or not, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now, there is a different arrangement, a formal union between members of the same gender. It's not the same thing, by definition.

This clearly has nothing to do with rights. It has everything to do with gays wanting to change the definition of a word. And the real question is, if they already have all the rights of a married couple within a civil union, why?

Leland wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:09 PM:Marriage has indeed taken many forms over the millennia, but it’s always been based on the nucleus of at least one man and at least one woman.

When in history has any society or culture ever recognized a group of any number of men only or women only as married?

let us move on wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:17 PM:My life has nothing to do with your kindergarten class. As my mother is a teacher at a private school and I am a product of Christian schools, clearly regardless of what we are “taught” doesn’t designate who you are. Funny how most of the people in an uproar over the whole teaching of gays and gay marriage in public schools (which is untrue) don’t have children that attend public schools, and for the public school parents that are so opposed, send them elsewhere, as that would be your choice. For me, was it better to have been hidden from reality, subsequently losing out on a big portion of my youth because I was made to feel scared inadequate and ashamed to be myself … as I am a married lesbian I don’t feel it is my duty to advocate putting evangelical naive religiously misguided cult brain washing fundamentalist down as a proposition, that’s just me… Try reading Matthew 7: 1-12.… Public or private, charter or home school it is YOUR job as a parent to explain your personal/religious beliefs and to openly and honestly raise your children. If you think for one moment that your child despite of what you may hope they become won’t question or challenge something that they have been taught or not taught, I feel sorry for you as a person. If your so concerned with the moral health and well being of this country and its public school children, lets talk about the sanctity of marriage…..Since men and women are the only the makers of marriage and children take a long hard look at your track record. How many “kindergartners” are sent off to school from broken dysfunctional homes…and spend 12 of there 24hr day in school and daycare. And how many of “your” kids are having kids…. And to the mom that said “how do you explain two mommies to a five yr old?” how do explain the fact the day in and day out people go through a drive-thru to get married or get drunk and married dressed like Elvis one day and divorce two weeks later! You explain to me how my life is going to make this country worse. We are so far removed from this countries real issues and the progression of this world it is pathetic. We have everything so much so that we don’t understand how to be content with our self so how can we expect others to treat others with respect. We have gone the way of misery loves company. And at the end of the day you can continue to fight against the only thing that is truly our own, free will, but you will never ever be able to take that from me. I will regardless of legalities love whom I choose and will decide to take the simple advice of “ do unto others” . It’s a No for me….

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:02 PM:To Real Difference 1:37 PM

You say “sexual behavior is a choice”. That may be true. You were not born a heterosexual. You became one by choice. You chose that kind of lifestyle. It would be simple for you to change all that and become a homosexual. Maybe in your next life.

Genetics and Bill of Rights wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:21 PM:Real Difference has no point (2:41 PM)

Genetics is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution as a prerequisite for benefits of the Bill of Rights, or any other part of the Constitution. ALL PEOPLE a covered by the protection and liberties of the Constitution, and genetics has nothing to do with it.

Being a Republican is not genetic either. It is a choice, but Republicans, like homosexuals, make their choice to engage in their particular kind of behavior. We allow Republicans to marry, and we should allow gays Republicans to marry also.

“Whew, it is nice to hae some good clear thinking once in a while,” as you said (2:41 PM).

Real Difference Redux wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:08 PM:To Gay Man:

I was very careful in my choice of words. I was referring to behavior, not attraction, sexual orientation, perceived sex, etc.
Sexual behavior, as all behavior, is the result of the will.
And we do know for sure that sexual orientation is not 100% genetic (there is crystal clear research on that). This is not to say that homosexuality is 100% choice for many people- I would argue that it is a combination of nature and nurture, as are many personality factors. But my comments were focused solely on the irrational argument offered by the author of the article above. Please take my comments on face value, there is no need to apply any stereotypes and/or vilify someone who may have a different point of view with you.

Real Difference does have a point wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:19 PM:To Genetics and Bill of Rights:

Please go back and reread the post- the post was pointing out the illogical analogy the author (Crews) was making. The post didn't argue that genetics is mentioned in the Constitution or a prerequisite for being covered by the Bill of Rights. I am not sure where you got that crazy idea.

I agree with you that all people are covered by the Constitution. In fact, I would personally lay my life down to protect the life of a fellow citizen, regardless of age, sexual orientation, gender, political affiliation, etc.

I strongly support the equal value and rights of each and every homosexual. And, without any contradiction (legally, logically, in terms of rights or value), I believe that it is best for society to continue honoring marriage as a one man and one woman concept. What people are upset about is that I do not give equal weight to the different desires of homosexuals. That is true, and each and every one of the readers of this post also make judgments about the desires of people (e.g. some desires ought to be honored like the desire to share, some shouldn't like the desire to steal). And making judgments about the desires of people has nothing to do with making a judgment about the value of the person holding the desire.

Mike S. wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:30 PM:If you look at the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, you will find that most amendments are written to protect the rights of the people, not to restrict them. The one amendment that really tried to restrict behavior was the amendment to prohibit alcoholic beverages--and that one was repealed by another amendment within 15 years. Is it really in the spirit of the U.S. Constitution to pass an amendment of the State Constitution that restricts, rather than protects, the rights of ALL citizens? Those in heterosexual marriages are not "protected" by Proposition 8, but some who wish to be married will have their rights restricted.

Best Argument wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:35 PM:Hi all,
Let's cut through the emoting and get to the meat of the issue. Can someone please provide me with the best argument in favor of same-sex marriage that doesn't also prove that marriage should be expanded to ANYone who loves anyone else (e.g. polygamists, relationships with animals, relationships with those under 18, etc.)? Thank you. It would be helpful for me so I can consider the reasons and not the emotions.

John wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:45 PM:To Mike S.

Yes, they aren't called the Bill of Rights for nothing. ;)

But, a few thoughts.
1) There is a heck of a lot of restricting behavior in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the rights of others (you can't take away one's right to free speech, you can't take away someone's right to guns, you can't unlawfully search a house, etc.)
2) Even if there was nothing but right-granting and no restrictions in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, it still is no argument that the spirit of the Constitution wouldn't want to rebuff the attacks to destroy the concept of marriage assumed by all the authors of the Constitution.
3) If only the judges would pay a little more attention to unborn homosexuals and heterosexuals and try to protect their rights to not be cut to pieces without their consent, then we would be getting somewhere.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with rights wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:48 PM:Fact: same-sex couples would gain 0 rights if they were allowed to be married. They already have every right a married couple does in the state of California if they are registered as a domestic partner.

People don't oppose prop 8 because of civil/human rights or equal value of humans.

People oppose prop 8 because they want to "force" everyone to accept their point of view.

What other option is there?

What is the point wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:07 PM:What is the point of Real Difference? (9:19 PM)

Crews made his own point, you made yours and I made mine. They are all three different. I address the point your tried to make, that gays should be excluded from the right to marriage because their homosexuality is partly governed to some extent by "an environmental component to one developing homosexual attractions/tendencies." (your exact words)

You have made the declaration that the right to marry is based upon something to do with genetics and/or environmental components. The Constitutional right to marry is based upon neither. PERIOD! It is based upon the equal application and protection of the law for all people, just as the Supreme Court ruled.

Furthermore, you stated “I believe that it is best for society to continue honoring marriage as a one man and one woman concept.” We all have beliefs, I suppose, but I would hope they are based upon some rational, empirical reason. Do you believe homosexuals are better off being deprived of a loving, committed relationship? Do you believe homosexuals should marry opposite sex partners and live a life of lies and maladjustment? What is the justification for your belief, not for yourself as a heterosexual, but for those who are homosexual? Why do you assume the right to tell others whom they may not marry? Do make the assumption that procreation mandatory for marriage? Please lay out your rationality.

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:13 PM:Mike S. (9:30 PM) scores!<.B>

Thank you, Mike, for pointing out that the spirit of the Constitution is to bring freedoms, not restrictions to the people. This is profound.

Can I get a pro-choice taker wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:20 PM:Any pro-choice/no on prop 8 person want to try to answer this question?

If you want the government to allow individuals to make the decision as to whether an unborn child gets the right to live or die, why would you want to force "traditional marriage folks" to accept your view of marriage. Doesn't that kind of go against your principles of choice?

Marriage isnt about rights it is about children wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:25 PM:I think that everyone is missing the point when they argue that marriage is about rights. That may be the view of many people today, but that isn't the reason marriage came about. Marriage came about as a sanctioning of the natural pairing of man/woman to raise children. These "nuclear families" have served as the most foundational unit of civilization since humans have been around. And, research shows, the most healthy environment to raise a child is one in which the man and woman who made that child each contribute their masculinity and femininity in a stable, committed relationship to raise the child to be a healthy functioning adult whom you and I would want as a neighbor. You may not like it, but that is the way reality is.

Polygamy bestiality etc wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:27 PM:To Best Argument (9:35PM)

In your inquiry about mariage, you asked why it should not be lawful for:

(1) Polygamy. Because it degrades women, and is elitist. The rich and powerful men get all the women, usually against their will.

(2) Bestiality: Because you did not get the animal’s approval, they did not sign the marriage license, and the animal did not say “I do.”

(3) Underage children: Because their bodies, minds and souls are not fully mature. Do you really think there is a rationality for a grown man marrying a 14 year old? This is perverse. Two mature men, who love each other and want to marry is normal.

Any more stupid questions?

So Cal Women wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:28 PM:YES ON 8, KEEP MARRIAGE STRAIGHT!!

Why such hate for those that disagree with you wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:29 PM:There is so much hatred for those who support prop 8. Why? What happened to civil discourse that was focused on the power of an argument, not calling names.

When those who oppose prop 8 call names and continually use stereotypes and caricatures of pro-8 people, it makes you all look like you haven't anything to back of your view but childish name calling.

The best argument is... wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:31 PM:The best argument is that you have to allow anyone who loves someone else the right to marry. I am sorry, but this does include polygamists, those who want to marry animals, children, etc. If they are consenting, why would you want to discriminate against them? Because you are intolerant probably.

Unborn homosexuals wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:44 PM:An original thought from John (9:45 PM): "UNBORN HOMOSEXUALS".

The implication of this thought is that the fetus can be genetically marked as homosexual, and should be protected as a sacred life.

I thank John for this, but I do wonder, with the homophobic fervor of the Mormon and fundamentalist sects, if they would be more willing to be a little more liberal in allowing abortion if they knew they were aborting a little homosexual infant. I do not trust these rabid believers.

Ryan L wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:01 PM:I’m 26 and have to admit that I’ve never voted before, but when I heard about Proposition 8 I felt now is the time to register. I feel that this proposition is similar in a way to what my parents went through in the mid 50’s all the way into the 60’s with the civil rights movement. My grandparents went through the struggles woman went through to acquire right to vote which became the 19th amendment in 1920. This pattern extends back in time forever. Here we are in 2008 and we still haven’t gotten over ourselves in the United States. I want to tell everyone who wants to pass Prop 8 “WE’RE ALL DIFFERENT. IT’S ALL GOOD PEOPLE DON’T TRIP SO MUCH ON OTHER PEOPLE BEING DIFFERENT THAN YOU!!!AND YOUR GOING TO MAKE THE NEXT GENERNATION EVEN MORE IGNORANT” It makes me sad to see the Yes On Prop 8 signs in my neighbors yard and the families with their children holding Yes On 8 signs out on street corners. It saddens me to think of the young children watching and holding Yes On Prop 8 signs along with there friends and families. I can only imagine what these parents are telling/teaching their children about this issue. This is why children grow up to be ignorant like their parents and this close-minded mentality these Americans have keeps showing up generation after generation.

I hope to teach my children to love everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religious beliefs, etc, etc, etc. I’m voting NO ON PROP 8 for my future unborn children and their generation with the hope of thinning out ignorant Americans in the future.

Arthur wrote on Oct 25, 2008 7:49 AM:"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison 1785

"A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." Jim Walker, earlyamerica.com

Proposition 8 is part of a larger agenda by religious fundamentalists to create a government that forces a narrow and flawed religion on the American people. Christian principles of truth, compassion, service to others, morality, and forgiveness are replaced with red-hot hatred, lies, deceit, intolerance, bigotry, and often, violence, all in the name of a God exclusive to the followers of this mean-spirited form of superstitious belief.

No on 8 to send a clear message to these zealots that the Constitution and the rule of law cannot be subverted by any group.
No on 8 to tell the bullies of religious fundamentalism that enough is enough, intolerance and hatred only creates more intolerance and hatred.
No on 8 to support equal rights for all.
No on 8 to support the wisdom and eloquence of the California Supreme Court.

To Best Argument wrote on Oct 25, 2008 9:17 AM:"Let's cut through the emoting and get to the meat of the issue. Can someone please provide me with the best argument in favor of same-sex marriage that doesn't also prove that marriage should be expanded to ANYone who loves anyone else (e.g. polygamists, relationships with animals, relationships with those under 18, etc.)? Thank you. It would be helpful for me so I can consider the reasons and not the emotions."

----

First of all, the idea that someone could marry an animal would be laughable if it wasn't so stupid. An animal doesn't have the ability to consent to the contract/relationship.

Secondly, teenagers. Also unable to legally consent to the contract/relationship. Although, you may or may not be surprised to know that underage people can get married in many states as long as they have parental consent.

Third, polygamy. This is certainly a matter of preference, but not one I care even the slightest about. As long as everyone involved are legal adults who agree and consent to the dynamics of the relationship ... who cares? I had a friend in a multi-partner relationship for over a decade and they didn't seem to have any problems with it.

Most importantly, none of the above scenarios are even a small part of prop 8. It's just more fear and paranoia being spread by zealots who think they are in the position to tell everyone else how to live.

-----

EDUCATE YOURSELF
VOTE FOR EQUALITY
NO ON 8

Polygamy etc. wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:07 AM:To Best Argument: (9:35PM)

In your inquiry about marriage, you asked why it should not be lawful for:

(1) Polygamy. Because it degrades women, and is elitist. The rich and powerful men get all the women, usually against their will. Religions which permit polygamy treat women subserviently.

(2) Bestiality: Because you did not get the animal’s approval, the animal did not sign the marriage license, and the animal did not say "I do. Animals have rights, too, as creatures of God.

(3) Underage children: Because their bodies, minds and souls are not fully mature. Do you really think there is a rationality for a grown man marrying a 14 year old? This is perverse. Two mature men, who love each other and want to marry is normal.

Any more stupid questions?
Submitted 10:26pm, resubmitted 10:01am

Rational and straight wrote on Oct 25, 2008 3:41 PM:The real difference if gay marriage continues to be legal is that the children that we all worry about will not need to go into a closet to snicker and share stories. My guess is that most kids have some knowlege that gayness exists but that it's dirty. I remember as a little kid 50 yrs ago, that the 1st Playboy I ever saw belonged to the boyish sister of one of my best friends. We looked at pics and I'm still straight with no major psychological damage. LOL. The kids will be OK. Really, they will.

Anne wrote on Oct 25, 2008 5:38 PM:I think some things are being glossed over in this article. First, what we are discussing is marriage as a legally recognized relationship. No one is disputing whatever relationships an individual may freely enter outside of legal recognition. But marriage has a host of public legal obligations and implications, and the CA SC decision was amazingly brief on the full scope of the marital relationship recognized by law, such as taxation, divorce, the right to sue, spousal privilege, etc. Those are issues that legitimately ought to be determined through legislative, rather than judicial, decision-making. Moreover, I find it peculiar that the homosexual community has long pled for "tolerance" and wanting the government to stay out of people's private lives. But with the legal sanction they are now defending, they do not ask for tolerance or for privacy, but for a very public approbation of conduct that many people feel, quite justifiably, is morally wrong. I am perfectly willing to tolerate private relationships, but no one is entitled to special legal privileges--for that is what marriage means. This is not about treating homosexuals equally, this is about requiring the people of the state of California to grant to homosexual couples the legal privileges that marriage affords to opposite-sex couples, without any of the compelling reasons why traditional marriage is afforded those privileges.

EQUAL TREATMENT wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:52 PM:Glossed over by Anne 5:38 PM

Wake up, Anne! Gay marriage is already a legally recognized relationship. The State of CA recognizes that the right to choose one's partner in marriage belongs to all people.

All marriages are legalized by the State, and come under the same laws and regulations. Why do you not understand that it is not necessary to go back and higgidly piggidly re-write every single law and little regulation and provision to specify that it now is applicable for same-gender marriages? Ridiculous. You are being dense.

When interracial marriages were legalized in one grand sweep by the U.S. Supreme Court, 41 years ago, these marriages automatically became beneficiaries of the same protections, and governed by the same regulations and provision that were already in effect for white folks.

In your own personal life-cocoon you may never accept same-sex marriage, and that is not abnormal. As Crews stated in his op-ed, there are still many racists today who do not accept interracial marriage as normal 41 years after the great decision. And 41 years from now there will still be a small percentage of people, perhaps even including yourself, who will not accept that marriage is a fundamental right which belongs to ALL people, and that it is not a gift from the government or from the church or from YOU. You do not have the right to tell other people whom they may not marry.

I am fully aware that your mind-set is so rigid and inflexible that you are unable to change with the times. That is often the way it is with older adults. They become stuck in the past and keep trying to dictate other people’s lives, rights and freedoms. Get over it of you want to become part of American society.

Hold on Anne wrote on Oct 26, 2008 12:01 AM:You made the statement that “no one is entitled to special legal privileges” -- except for yourself, apparently [5:38pm]. What makes you worthy of the “special privilege” of marriage, but not other people whom you choose to exclude. What gives you the right to be “The decider”? Did your religion teach you this?

MomOfTwo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 8:44 AM:About a month ago, my family attended a beautiful wedding. The two people getting married were obviously very much in love, and were so happy that after being together for 25 years that they were finally able to get married. I can't understand why some people want to take that away from they just because they are gay. Their love and bond is no less strong than any other married couples', and more so than many. One comment that was made at the wedding is that most couples get married and dream of spending a life together, while same-sex couples spend a life together dreaming of being able to get married. This is a fundamental right that belongs to everybody.

I am glad that my 8-year-old son was able to witness this wedding and see that just because other people are different than us doesn't mean that they have to be treated differently. I am sure there are some out there who would be aghast at the idea of subjecting a young boy to such a thing. What I am not sure of is what they are afraid of. Do they think that because a boy sees that it's okay to be gay that the boy will become gay? Well - I've got news for you -- it doesn't work that way. People don't "become" gay. Whatever God made you the way you are also made gay and lesbians the way they are - it's just something in the way they were built. And I am glad that my children will grow up to respect other peoples' differences.

Please don't build discrimination into our constitution, regardless of your personal feelings about same-sex couples. How would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry the person you loved?

No, gay marriage will not affect our schools - that is an out-and-out lie by the prop 8 people meant to scare people. California law dictates that parents are allowed to exclude their children from any health and family related instruction. This will not change.

Please vote to protect marriage for everybody. Vote NO on Proposition 8. Intolerance should not be tolerated.

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 26, 2008 10:43 AM:Equal in theory only (Oct 24, 2008 9:19 PM)

How interesting! That blogger said that, “all people are covered by the Constitution”, and said further that he would “lay my life down to protect the life of a fellow citizen, regardless of age, sexual orientation …. Etc”.

Then he hastens to say, nevertheless, that he opposes permitting gays to marry. HOW BIZARRE! He would give up his life to defend the rights of gays, but would never hand over the title of marriage to a gay couple. He puts the value of the title above his own life. Now I find that very interesting! This is true die-hard ideology.

Michelle wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:36 AM:While I am not going to say which way I voted, I will say that I know people who are for prop 8 and people who are against prop 8 and I understand both sides of the issue. However, I do feel that whichever way it turns out, it is going to be a never-ending battle. I admit that I'm not very good at history, but if my memory serves correctly, ammendments can be ratified (I think that's the correct term to be changed and I think that happened with prohibition). If prop 8, the opponents will fight to ratify the constitution and if prop 8 loses, the supporters will keep fighting to get an ammendment and who knows how long the battle will go.

John wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:01 PM:I don't really get the point of banning gay marriage when it already existed without issue. Why should we ever refuse a person rights to do anything that doesn't even affect anyone else. I thought this was a free country without exception but here we are...an exception if you're gay. This prop should never have been put into existance as it involves a majority taking away rights from a minority. It would be like a prop going up banning vietnamese people from getting a driver's license. Could their really be enough vietnamese and defendants of vietnamese to prevent this bill from being passed especially if people felt so strongly about who drives and does not drive.

Nadine wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:56 AM:I believe that the word Marriage is very significant to MANY Religious people- Not just Christians- and that word signifies to them, and I am one of them, a mandate from an all powerful Being about how to live their lives. Marriage in this context is solely between a man and a woman.

Now, because we have separation of Church and state, religious beliefs - theoretically - ought not to permeate and influence legal matters. But that doesn't necessarily happen. People tend to vote according to their personal beliefs. So for those people who don't believe in another definition of marriage, the word being applied to anything else other than one man's union to one woman is very difficult for them to digest.

Maybe there should be domestic partnerships for everyone and leave the word marriage alone. Can this be?